Command and Conquer Wiki:Archives/Forum:Sysop
This is the Administrator Forum. Here is where GDI's top commanders discuss changes and plans for this central data source. If you want, you can watch what they have been discussing. This Wiki is the EVA Network :-) That being the case, should we redo our main page to act more like it? It would help to make it more believable as an inside-the-universe database. Is it possible to invert the pages, so the text is white and the background black? That would look more EVAish... Also we'd have to replace the logo with something that looks like EVA. What about the name? Should it be EVA Network or just Net. Or maybe EVA Global Database or something? --Agaiz 21:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC). Ideally, we'd get the floating EVA sign thing that is present in the Firestorm cutscenes. --Dthaiger 01:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I think what we should do if this truly was the EVA network is this: 1. The Main Page's content is moved to a different article, which becomes titled something like 'Data Hub' or 'EVA' central. 2. The actual first page reads something like this: Important Information The information presented in this database is classified Red. All unauthorized viewing is a class 1 offense and is punishable by Death. Transmission is Secure: Click Here to continue. We move the important information off of the real main page and move it to the front page. We also change the 'Help' that one gets from clicking on the 'help' button on the side to an in-universe help. Finally, we stipulate that all 'talk' pages have to be in-universe too. Basically, once people get off that front page - everything is in-universe, from the talk pages, to the articles to the links. And unfortunately, that would include user pages as well, so we'd have to keep out-of-universe article discussion off of there as well. For example ... OK: I'm not sure if the Nod buggy was used during the first or second tiberium war. Not OK: I'm not sure if the Nod Buggy was used during Tiberium Dawn or Tiberium Sun. I'd love comments about this idea. --Dthaiger 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Well... When I thought about setting up this wiki, I considered making it "EVA.wikicities.com" (it used to be called wikicities, remember?). Now, consider the Star Trek Wiki - http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page. "Memory Alpha" (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Memory_Alpha) is the Star Trek universe's equivalent of EVA's historical database. We could change once we have our own domain (ahem...). Anyhow, I think we should assume for the moment that this Wiki "is" the EVA thingy, talk pages are outside-of-universe, and I like the Spoilers page. Basically, we can't really do anything until we have more people to vote about it. But the name "Command and Conquer Wiki" is a bit bland, so perhaps EVA would be a more imaginative name for it in the (perhaps reasonably near) future. --Snow93 10:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC) That being the case, I'll move this to a 'poll' site, and link it from the main page, if I can. --Dthaiger 14:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC) People Where is everyone? They put it on the main page of cncnz.com, and no one is showing up. --Dthaiger 15:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Why should talk pages be out of universe. All it takes is a little creativity, and talk pages can be put in-universe. Example: Instead of: There's aren't very many people coming to visit the Wiki. Use Field Commanders aren't using this resource. Perhaps information has been insufficiently distributed. --Dthaiger 18:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) We sure could do that but this is no roleplaying game here... I doubt that everybody would be willing to rewrite their talk in that fashion - including me. I'm just doing this for fun and not being able to mention a game's name on the talk page is just too geeky in my opinion ^^ --Agaiz 22:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Too bad :-( --Dthaiger 01:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Where I'm at - Caltech, geekiness abounds --Dthaiger 01:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Well it's a campus :-) Hmm that makes me think... maybe you could recruit people there, hehe :-D --Agaiz 07:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC) There are very few die-hard Command and Conquer fans here --Dthaiger 08:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC) It is a bit sad though, "talking" as if one was in the universe. By the way, people on Tiberium Sun say that they're viewing this, but we're not getting any more views - it's stuck at 62 views. How can this be fixed? --Dthaiger 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Refreshing doesn't help. I don't know. Did you watch the stats page before it was announced? --Agaiz 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Look at the 'popular pages' list. I should point out this: One of my friends said all the information is online already. I kind of doubt that, however. I can't find anywhere a storyline of TWII or Firestorm as detailed as the one we have. --Dthaiger 07:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Style Well, all right. But at least, what do you think of turning it into an EVA network style thing. --Dthaiger 15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC) I'll see what I can do logowise in Photoshop as soon as I find the time... --Agaiz 18:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC) User the GIMP! --Snow93 10:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Ok, new style / logos are here, what do you think? --Agaiz 14:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) I really like it. --Dthaiger 15:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Prototype Assault Suit What is it? See Tiberium. It's from Renegade, a protective suit basically. It was upgraded for combat by Sydney however. I don't know if we should link it to the XO-suit and Wolverine but they look kind of like more advanced versions of the PAS to me. --Agaiz 10:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC) In case you were wondering, the PAS is wonderful. It is probably the neatest bit of "filling-in-the-gaps" ever. For example, onfantry in TS wear it (or a version of it - for all purposes it is basically the same technology). But Nod people wear it too. Why? Because they stole it in Renegade and copied the technology! Perfect. It is also why in Renegade and TD you die so much more easily from Tiberium. It protects you from Tiberium! Perfect. The X0/Wolverine stuff is... I dunno. Maybe we should decide on that. --Snow93 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Ranks? I went over to Tiberium Sun.com and noticed that they have various ranks. I think that we should have a similar situation with this Wiki for our users, perhaps in conjunction with the templates (IE, we could make a protected 'RANK' Page, perhaps). Snow 93: General Admin: Lieutenant General 70+ articles / uploads (You Rock!): Major General 40 - 70 articles / uploads: Brigadier General 20 - 40 articles / uploads: Colonel 10 - 20 articles / uploads: Commander 0 - 10 articles: Commander in Training What do you think? Well, it is official policy on Wikipedia to not care about edit count- otherwise it can get a bit competitive, which is a bad thing. --Snow93 09:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Good point, Never Mind. --Dthaiger 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Main Page Thanks to Agaiz, we have an updated, more (in-universe) look consistent with our being the EVA network. There's only one problem. How do we change it so that the 'Main Page' actually redirects to Main Page 2 (Which, by the way, should probably be renamed 'EVA hub' or something similar to that. Seems you found a solution, MediaWiki Sidebar :-) --Agaiz 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Yes I did, eventually. I'll see about changing the background as well. But we definitely do need to see more articles as well. --Dthaiger 00:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Sorry about spamming the "recent changes" thing, but I learned the hard way that I do not know much about changing the monobook. If one of you knows. :-) --Dthaiger 01:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) We could just leave it the way it is, I redesigned the EVA screens so they match the white/blue wiki style. (Check out the file history of EVA DB.jpg for the first version, which is actually an inverted TS EVA loadscreen with some changes) --Agaiz 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC) I love the blue styles. The logo in the corner still goes to Main_Page though. --Snow93 18:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC) True. I don't know how to change that. Do you? --Dthaiger 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC) Miscellaneous Comment 1: I think that we should put our comments here, rather than making a mess out of the Main Page discussion forums and other people's talk pages. This gives us one place to talk. Further, as it is an Admin Forum, I'm going to protect it. OK. Now, Snow93 - did you get that EA account? --Dthaiger 19:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC) By the way, I submitted our wiki to CnCNZ --Agaiz 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC) Hooray! Hooray! --Dthaiger 00:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC) I've added it to both community news http://forums.cncnz.com/viewforum.php?f=3 and community links http://www.cncnz.com/community/links/search.php?q=wiki :-) --Agaiz 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC) How does one make a new article without necessarily linking it from something else? --Dthaiger 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Go to search and enter the exact spelling for the article you wish to create. A red link will appear on top and give you the option to create an article from scratch. --Agaiz 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Thank you --Dthaiger 15:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC) I put a link from Command and Conquer on Wikipedia to us. Maybe that'll get more people to come, but I'm not sure. --Dthaiger 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC) What's the consensus on light tank? --Dthaiger 23:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Way to go agaiz - look here!! http://www.cncnz.com/ And Tumsun... http://tiberiumsun.revora.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=109403 --Snow93 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Important: What policy is there on plagarism? I think it's obvious that we're using the sources listed under 'acceptable for inclusion in articles,' but I don't think we want people to be copying verbatim. --Dthaiger 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) In preparation for the deluge of visitors, I'm going to stop writing new articles, and I'm going to start cleaning up old articles. --Dthaiger 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I should probably point out that I don't have any of the games - all the text I write is based either on my memory or on other sites - more frequently on my memory than anything else. That's why the quotes have to be paraphrases. --Dthaiger 01:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC) What do we know about Toxin Soldiers for sure? --Dthaiger 23:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC) They looked like Slavik - they used his SHP model in-game to be precise, just like the Elite cadre did - but it is of course no relevant for this database. They were used to bend peoples will so they would obey Nod (civilians, Jake), but you already wrote that... It was just another way to 'convince' people to work for Nod if they couldn't be convinced by the media or other propaganda. Well on Jake they kind of used both, Oxanna's propaganda techniques and drugs. --Agaiz 10:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that the Toxin Soldier's weapon had a short-term effect, or they wouldn't have had to worry about 'convincing' Jake using Oxanna. --Dthaiger 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) About that parallel universe (i.e. RA2 & Generals) issue again... We could write something like: Through a leak in the time-space continuum EVA was able to obtain information from alternate realities... blabla... Oh, what do you think about the idea that TD was a result of the Soviets winning the war and RA2 victorious Allied forces? I think I read this on the Renegade wiki. But there were some glitches like Firestorm occured in 2032 and stuff, so this doesn't have to be true. I guess it could be because Kane appeared... but on the other hand he could have been there all the time without the Soviets being victorious. --Agaiz 10:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC) I thought Firestorm was in 2031 --Dthaiger 15:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC) Indeed it did, late 2030/early 2031 ... that's why I said they may also be wrong about the other stuff --Agaiz 00:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC) We could write something like: Through a leak in the time-space continuum EVA was able to obtain information from alternate realities... blabla... would be silly. We should have a different namespace (i.e. RA2:Main Page) or something. About who won GWII in which reality, I though we disussed this at Canon. Also, a few discrepances in dates is not important. It's not like anyone in the cnc community worries much about them. We only have a few definate ones, from sources such as Cut-scenes. Just read the Canon page. --Snow93 14:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC) I think the better part of valor at this point is to find a way to link in the RA2 storyline. Driving Ghost is including it, and I'm sure that I could find a way. Plus, that means that we'll have everything but Generals in --Dthaiger 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC) But how? I mean it doesn't really make sense at this point. We could try finding stuff like what we discussed earlier (Lt. Eva, Apoc tank pictures...) but I don't know... How about this? "Please note that the events during the Great World War III are not part of the core universe. They happened in a parallel timeline and must therefore be marked with the prefix "RA2:" to avoid confusion." The same could be written for Generals (maybe there it is "The Great World War on Terrorism" ^^) --Agaiz 12:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Generals is definitely not in - there are too many continuity issues and even technical issues within the game itself, such as Radiation pressure on the orbital mirrors, which would be non-trivial. The whole 'instant tunnel teleport' The fact that camoflauge and stealth are pretty much treated the same way, etc. The other thing is that there are things like Lt EVA and the picture in the temple. Maybe someone should ask APOC about this. --Dthaiger 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Important! We need to make a decision about the RA2 / Generals issue now. As I see it, we have several options. 1. We do not include them. 2. We do include them, but with the warning that they are not canon 3. We include RA2 as canon (and I put my creative writing skills to work), but do not include Generals as canon. 4. We include them without warning, or with the notice that 'EVA' has detected a time leak, or something like that. Myself, I like option number 3. We'd probably say something like: Between the First and Second Tiberium Wars, it was realized that training was necessary to prepare against enemy terrorist threats. In fact, the United States, acting of its own initiative, developed a set of scenarios, projecting some 35 years into the future its own military capabilities, and speculating on what threats and technology might exist in 2030 or so. At this point, it was thought that Tiberium might not make much of a difference, so it was not included in the simulation. The GDI inherited these simulations and found them to be very effective in honing young commanders' skills. This is loosely based off of official statements about what generals is that were given during its own development. I can't exactly find out where those statements are, but I'm sure they were given. We then include RA2 by saying simply that it occurred between the Great World War II and the First Tiberium War. --Dthaiger 21:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Please take a look at this article http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/pc/btg_ccgenerals/index.html mostly about Generals when it was under developement. Some interesting quotes there: "As the presentation continues, Skaggs, the executive in charge of production on the game, starts to explain the epic conflict behind this reimagining of the C&C universe. Set 20 years in the future" "We even considered the game that I call the missing link--the title that would go in between Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn" --Agaiz 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC) That's just plain wrong, I'm afraid. Generals is set in about 2030, which is a direct violation of continuity with TS. And its not one that any stretch of creative writing can fix. I'm going to label it as simulations developed by the US that GDI later found useful --Dthaiger 03:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC) We should have RA2, but keep it COMPLETELY seperate, so there is no chance of confusing it with the main storyline. Basically, we have almost a seperate wiki for RA2. All RA2 articles start with RA2:, and we have a seperate main page (RA2:Main Page) for it. Actually, there is a dead wiki at http://ra2.wikia.com/ (it hasn't been updated for at least a year. Angela (from Wikia) does make people sysops for a dead wiki if the original founder is inactive, so we could use it. As for Generals, I personally would not include it, because # It has no storyline anyway. # It's pretty similar to the real world anyway. If we do include it, we should keep it seperate like for RA2. Also, now we are completely "In Universe", I think we should have a "not in universe" main page at Command and Conquer Wiki:Main Page where we could have "not in universe" new and stuff. I think the Blossom Tree should be either In universe for the tiberium universe, or not in any universe. Personally, as it is in the Command and Conquer Wiki: namespace, I think it should be not in any universe (i.e. no creative references to Generals please Dthaiger! :-) ). The name Blossom Tree is meant to be jokey, by the way. Also, I intend to make the Command and Conquer Wiki:Veinhole Monster for the equivalent of Wikipedia's articles for deletion. Can I rename Command and Conquer Wiki:Important Information to Introduction, or should we have a seperate page for an introduction on how to get started contributing to cncWiki? One last thing. Wikipedia has a system of "shortcuts" for it's project pages (Wikipedia:), so you don't have to type something really long each time (using redirects). Considering our "Project namespace" is even longer (command and Conquer wiki:), I think it's high time we had some shortcuts. The way Wikipedia does it is to have WP: then a shortened version of the name. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion would become WP:AfD, and Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other Deleted Nonsense would become WP:BJAODN. Should our one be CnCWiki:, or just CCW:? So Command and Conquer Wiki:Canon would become either CnCWiki:C or CCW:C and those last to pages would just contain #REDIRECTCommand and Conquer Wiki:Canon . That's all for now. -- 12:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC) But can there be redirects from cnc.wikia to ra2.wikia? Also I think people prefer to have ONE wiki to look things up not two or three. That's why wikipedia is to successful, they have one wiki, one source of information, one search box. If I always had to switch pages in order to look up RA2 articles I'd probably get tired of it soon. I believe RA2 can be integrated into our already established article base. I like the idea with the shortcuts though, they have to be created only once and from that point on you'll never have to type the full page again... well ok I use the search box a lot as well as recent changes. But anyway, could come in handy. --Agaiz 13:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC) I will start making shortcuts then with CCW: So what do you think about the seperate RA2: namespace? Also, what do you think about the "In Universe" Main Page? Personally, I think the Command and Conquer Wiki (CCW) namespace should be: #Information about CnCWiki. #Help. #A glossary of terms we use to describe the universe, and other information. (For example, I think there should be pages for each individual game, to say what information (storyline) you can get from each one). Tell me what you think. --Snow93 07:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) I don't think it's that good of an idea. I think that the more we can tie everything together, the more realistic it appears, and I'm definitely in favor of realism. More than just a source of information, I want this Wiki to be an extension of the games themselves, and therefore, I want them to, at least somewhat, reflect the kind of environment the games provided. A famous person who's name eludes me right now spoke of the concept of the suspension of disbelief, and the reason this Wiki exists at all is because these games were good at allowing us to suspend our disbelief while we were playing them: Though we didn't leave our chair, at least for a moment, we were the valiant GDI or the insidious Nod, trying to kill the enemy forces, and praying that they wouldn't do the same to us. And therefore, I think that the best job this Wiki can do to honor that is to make our Wiki as cohesive as possible as well. Let the players step back into the game world one last time, and immerse themselves in what is, in many ways, a better world. Wow. A lot of text just to say that I think we should not have seperate namespaces. But I think the point is valid. --Dthaiger 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Well, I think that the RA2 universe and the tiberian one from TD onwards are not coherent. A RA2 namespace with information from RA, RA2 and YR can create a full storyline in itself. Yes, we should make each storyline realistic, but they are complete in themselves. It is impossible to connect them, because they contradict each other. No-one could ever hope for us to connect the RA2 and tiberian universes, and as this wiki is an "official" resource (as you said, an extension of the games themselves), I think we should not do anything to confuse anyone until a game developer tells the community how the two universes connect. Until then (and they might not anyway), we should respect their indesicion (grrr) and keep the universes seperate. --Snow93 19:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) The problem is that they both contradict and say that they are related: For example, pictures of Apocalypse tanks, Lieutenant EVA, that sort of thing. Either way, it's a problem. We should just ask APOC, except that I don't think he'd give us an answer. For now though, we have a more pressing issue. --Dthaiger 06:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Vehicle Template I don't understand why we have a vehicle template. With all of the previous units, I have tried to tailor the description to the particular unit. Furthermore, it seems clear to me that we definitely need an example article of that. --Dthaiger 07:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Well it would be good to have a standard way of laying out the sections in an article. The template also applies to buildings and infantry. -- 12:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC) More Important 1. Someone just copied a bunch of Wikipedia articles that aren't up to specs. I need help editing them to make them properly conform. 2. Someone just added a bunch of C&C3 descriptions. I'm not sure I even trust them, so I've marked them for termination. Comments? --Dthaiger 06:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC) I'd say we delete everything that is clearly copied, I don't want this project shut down because of copyright issues with wikipedia, I mean we might have enough problems with EA ... Edit: I'm changing articles that were already in our database and were copied from Wikipedia into redirects, sorry Dthaiger (I know you put some effort in rewriting them). Anyway, we could leave the C&C3 articles after a rewrite (remove stuff like 'this unit appears in command and conquer 3 ...'). I just read an article about some of the new units so I think I could write something about them. If they get changed in the process of developement we can still delete/change the article. Edit2: Or we can claim it was just a prototype that never made it into production just like the XO Suit (which was an early teaser for TS) --Agaiz 08:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Hmm, that guy, Gb2u, either ignores what you wrote or did not read it, anyhow he continues to copy&paste wikipedia stuff. I'm going to warn him once more and we might consider blocking him if that doesn't help. What do you think? --Agaiz 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC) Firstly, there are NO copyright issues with things copied from Wikipedia, for the simple reason it is licenced under the GFDL. We should credit WP though on a project page or somewhere. The only potemtial problem with WP material is that it contains outside-universe references. Secondly, the XO suit evolved into the Wolverine. Thirdly, perhaps we should isolate the C&C3 articles in some way until C&C3 comes out (we can write them but they aren't official encylopedia material yet). By the way, what do you mean by this?: "Edit: I'm changing articles that were already in our database and were copied from Wikipedia into redirects, sorry Dthaiger (I know you put some effort in rewriting them)." --Snow93 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 1. Still I don't like articles just being copy&pasted into our database... 2. Didn't I write something like the XO was a prototype wolverine? 3. I like the idea that they are prototypes (EA game designers would be (GDI/Nod) engineers in that case) For example Gb2u copied an article called "GDI minigunner" into CnCWiki, but it already existed under "Minigunner". However, Dthaiger put some work into taking out stuff like "this was used in Tiberian Dawn..." before I deleted the article. --Agaiz 19:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC) In reference to the article: Command and Conquer Red Alert 2, written by Gb2u, and moved by me to Command and Conquer Wiki:Sequestered Article 1. I think this article deserves to be deleted, and I know that it violates the policy page pretty blatently. Since I don't want to do this without the other Sysop's permission, but I definitely don't want to have this article available for regular public viewing, I've sequestered it. I have to say, I'm more than a little frustrated that someone would add an article 'Red Alert 2,' when I've already written 'Great World War III,' and after I got a majority of the admins' permission. --Dthaiger 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC) With regards to the Wikipedia stuff: 1. It is precisely because of the outside references that I'm concerned. For example, Wikipedia REQUIRES that when talking about C&C units, the article say stuff like: In the Red Alert 2 game ... This clearly violates our policies. I have no qualms with it if it is rewritten to conform to our standards, but if not, people could really get the wrong idea, both about our policies (IE, they don't exist / they're not enforced), and what else is going on. That's why I'm concerned. It's my opinion that the RA2 article which again, I have sequestered, is the last straw, and that G2... should be banned for a while. --Dthaiger 00:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Phew. Just got done doing some editing. As is probably apparent, I have blocked Gb2u for one day. If you want to know why, read about it on his user page. More importantly though, I've deleted an image because it was scanned from a copyrighted magazine. Things like that could get us into some real trouble, so I deleted it. If I find any more magazine scanned images, I'll be forced to delete them as well. --Dthaiger 06:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Thanks for blocking him, he was really "unstoppable" I doubt he even read our request on his user page. Oh and we can just delete the RA2 article it's from wikipedia anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_alert_2. It'll be a lot of work rewriting all of the articles he dropped on us here, well I guess that's why we don't want wikipedia articles copied here in the first place because in the time that it takes to remove all 'outside' references you could have written a nice article yourself ^^ Oh, and that guy also put in a bunch of Reborn (mod) images in here, that's why I added a phrase to the policy page stating that only official images will be allowed. --Agaiz 08:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Back to the Point Ok, we've sorted out that Wikipedia stuff. Now... Do we really need "In Universe" descriptions for places such as the Blossom Tree and this page itself? Also, I really don't get what is going on at Vehicles. First we had a nice, flexible template, where I particularly said that you don't need a new heading every two lines if you don't have enough information. This first version can be found herehttp://cnc.wikia.com/index.php?title=Command_and_Conquer_Wiki:Vehicles&oldid=2792. Then, IP address 208.60.233.36 creates the current version, which is disgusting and ugly and ungainly, so it is no wonder that Dthaiger says "I have marked this article for deletion". But then he says it is because "we don't use the titles of the games in the Wiki itself". Firstly, it is in the CnCWiki namespace. Secondly, even if one was going to follow this new template, it is unlikely that you would actually put the headings as the name of the games. I think 208.60.233.36 is User:Driving Ghost, by the way. Next up, the Blossom Tree. As I said above "In Universe" descriptions are unnecessary for articles in the project namespace. Dthaiger, you seem to have been jumping rather to conclusions; "After debate, high level commanders have agreed to include the Great World War III and Generals". No. We haven't. "Generals is strictly a simulation developed by the United States towards the end of TWI for use in training their soldiers". "United States" should be GDI and Generals is not a simulation. Quite by chance, Uncyclopedia's article on C&Chttp://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Conquer contains similar ideas! Now for RA2. You say this: "The problem is that they both contradict and say that they are related: For example, pictures of Apocalypse tanks, Lieutenant EVA, that sort of thing. Either way, it's a problem." Until we have definite evidence to the contrary, we should be explaining away the few ways in which the universes could connect, instead of building up a complicated connection from insufficient evidence. #Lieutenant Eva. This has nothing to do with EVA, and does not suggest a connection. Eva is a real name, but I think it was put in as a joke (see further below). #Pictures of Apocalypse tanks. As far as I can see, this is our only problem... so lets just ignore it. The pictures are very small and low quality and are buried in an obscure part of Renegade, so like I said, ignore it until APOC tells us what to do. In that case, I think one of us needs to ask APOC how to handle this. I don't have an account, but maybe something like: "Dear APOC, We were wondering how to handle RA2 and YR in the storyline for the Command and Conquer Wiki, and to a lesser extent, the Generals plotline. Should we treat them as seperate storylines, or should we try to unite them into one big storyline. Currently, we're going to keep them separate, but it'd be nice to know now, before we have too many articles that would need to be moved around. Obviously, this can change as more information is available. Sincerely, The Admins for C&C Wiki, cnc.wikia.com And mainly, Red Alert 2 is just such a joke. The cut-scenes are deliberately comical, and I don't want the brilliantly conceived "Tiberian universe" "polluted" by such rubbish. It's a good game, but sorry, no-one wants them to connect, especially on an "official" resource such as this Wiki. In fact I think more people would be willing to seperate RA from TD than to connect RA2 and TD/TS. The same goes for Generals. As for C&C3. Keep ALL articles in quarantine until further official announcements (i.e. the game being released). I'm sorry, but could you just trust me on this one? --Snow93 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Fine then. Please make the changes to the RA2 and Generals namespaces. Meanwhile, I'll be prowling for lifted articles and other illegal activity. Oh, and by the way, an article based on the vehicle template actually had all of the game names in it. I was slightly upset. --Dthaiger 02:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I don't really like the way this looks, just the unit name is much nicer and cleaner: RA2:Kirov_Airships. Isn't there another way to keep things seperate? And why shall we keep the C&C3 articles quarantined? As I already wrote above, we can still edit or remove them or keep them in the database as prototypes (when a unit like the Firehawk is dropped for example). I think including the new game will help us get more people here, because many are interested not just in the old games but first and foremost the new one! --Agaiz 08:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I was wondering if the news, since the Main Page 2 is also supposed to be in-universe, should be 40 years in the future. So next year is the year TW3 will occur. This way we are able to include everything that led to TW3 and all tech that is currently being developed and will be used in that war. However, of course we pretend the Third Tiberium War has not happened yet. Well actually it hasn't because nobody played the missions so far. To sum it up: should the news say June 2046 instead of 2006? --Agaiz 16:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Why not? --Dthaiger 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC) And then we have a more normal out-of-universe Main Page at Command and Conquer Wiki:Main Page. Ok, I'll go with you on all the C&C3 stuff, it is a good idea. By the way, which of you created the "Forum:" namespace? And how? Because at the moment the CCW: (shortcut) and RA2 namespaces don't seem to be showing up as proper namespaces. --Snow93 07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Ok, I updated the main page with the new stats link and 2046. About the namespace: it's not possible to create one yourself, you either have to use prefixes like we do now with RA2, or request one of the wikia admins to add it. More on this: http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Help:Custom_namespaces --Agaiz 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC) Namespaces I see Angela put in the new RA2 namespace, awesome! But it made me think, if "RA2:" isn't to 'outside'. How about using "1972:" instead? (How do you like my timeline by the way?) --Agaiz 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC) RA2 is fine for now :-). The timeline is great, except it should be in th project namespace and Renegade takes place at the end of TD. The last mission of Renegade IS the last mission of TD. Anyway, C&CWiki is now announced at: #www.cnccommunity.net #www.cncworld.org (I signed up for an account at webbies.cnccommunity.net - it's for webmasters and co-webmasters (and admins and stuff) of C&C sites.) --Snow93 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Great :-) We're also on PPM and CNCNZ again! --Agaiz 07:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC) Forum is now at Forum:Index. --Snow93 12:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Archives